Yondr, Inc. v. Win Elements, LLC, et al
| YONDR, INC., a Delaware corporation |
| DOES, 1-10, inclusive |
| FREDERIC M. DOUGLAS |
| WIN ELEMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company and JOHN NGUYEN, an individual |
| 22-56104 |
| November 23, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Patent |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 10, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): On December 2, 2022, this court ordered appellants, within 21 days, either to move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or to show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order warned appellants that failure to comply would result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk of the Court. To date, appellants have not complied with the courts order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as and for the mandate of this court. [12627461] (AF) [Entered: 01/10/2023 02:40 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the orders challenged in the appeal may not be final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (A district court order is . . . not appealable [under 1291] unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or unless judgment is entered in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).); see also Stanley v. Woodford, 449 F.3d 1060, 1063-65 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that an order imposing sanctions against a non-party attorney is not immediately appealable). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall either move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants elect to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellants do not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [12601127] (AF) [Entered: 12/02/2022 02:17 PM] |
| Filing 3 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 11/30/2022. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts.[12599689]. [22-56104] (AD) [Entered: 11/30/2022 06:44 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellants Frederic M. Douglas, John Nguyen and Win Elements, LLC Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 11/30/2022. [12599450] [22-56104] (Douglas, Frederic) [Entered: 11/30/2022 03:46 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Frederic M. Douglas, John Nguyen and Win Elements, LLC Mediation Questionnaire due on 11/30/2022. Appellants Frederic M. Douglas, John Nguyen and Win Elements, LLC opening brief due 01/17/2023. Appellee Yondr, Inc. answering brief due 02/16/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12595477] (JBS) [Entered: 11/23/2022 05:00 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
